In Q4 2011, Intel will unveil its new Sandy Bridge-E (enthusiast) platform, consisting of new multi-core processors in the 2011-pin LGA package, and Intel X79 Express chipset. A roadmap slide leaked to the Chinese media reveals an interesting way in which Intel will approach the platform to monetize it best. To begin with, it appears like Sandy Bridge-E will keep up with the trend set by LGA1155 processors where only certain models can be overclocked, while others are greatly limited. Among those that can be overclocked (or "unlocked", as Intel puts it,) there will be two classes.

The first class are the 6-core chips at the very top of the pile, probably branded "Extreme Edition", which feature both unlocked BClk multipliers, and have 15 MB of L3 cache, among several other features enabled. Traditionally these processors cost around US $1000. The first of such chips will be clocked at 3.30 GHz. The second class of "unlocked" chips are those which make overclocking more accessible at lower price points (we're thinking under $600), probably branded with the "K" brand identifier extension (eg: 2600K). These 6-core chips will feature unlocked multipliers, while having 12 MB of cache enabled. The first of these chips will be clocked at 3.20 GHz.

The third kind of LGA2011 chips are quad-core chips in which overclocking is limited. We don't expect them to overclock any better than non-unlocked Core i5/i7 LGA1155 chips. These chips get 10 MB of L3 cache enabled. Perhaps to compensate, Intel will clock these chips high. The first one will be clocked at 3.60 GHz. So what exactly differentiates these chips from LGA1155 non-unlocked Core i7 chips? Well, apart from the 10 MB L3 cache, these chips will have massive quad-channel DDR3 integrated memory controllers (IMCs), and integrated 32-lane PCI-Express 2.0 hubs that can drive up to four graphics cards without needing external bridge chips.

Plz stop with that bullshit that you can't oc the cpus's by blck(that is what this page tells mr) i want a 500mhz+blck not a high multiplier! And plz more cores, just make it the same way as 1366 with i7 and cpu's that handle 200mhz buss, but improve it zo will do 400mhz , or els it will be a fail again as sandy bridge. I still want to go for s1156

15mb L3 cache? That sounds crazy. My concern would be with the issues regarding latency when having that much cache. I guess maybe that's a little part of the reason why they're taking their time releasing these procs so that it will be WORTH having that much cache. It's going to be real interesting to see how this all pans out with Bulldozer being only a few months away from launch.

One thing i might point out is that even though these are a small architecture chips - traditionally high ghz means high power consumption, and if that holds true - i think were gonna need plutonium to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of power required

LGA-2011 CPU's have 40 lanes of PCI Express bandwidth, although it seems like four lanes might not be used in the consumer CPUs and four lanes are connected to the chipset directly to the SAS/SATA controller which leaves 32-26 lanes for "other stuff".

LGA-2011 CPU's have 40 lanes of PCI Express bandwidth, although it seems like four lanes might not be used in the consumer CPUs and four lanes are connected to the chipset directly to the SAS/SATA controller which leaves 32-26 lanes for "other stuff".

Click to expand...

32 lanes for PEG, 4 lanes for DMI, 4 for DMI-assist. So the CPU will never be directly running anything other than graphics cards (or whatever is installed in those x16/x8 slots).

So the difference between the affordable chips and the extreme edition is the cache this time around? Not sure how I feel about that, is this a bigger or smaller difference than we had previously? Unlocked multipliers were nice, but you could go just as far with fsb clocking in most cases, but here this is a clock for clock advantage...

You know it feels like this is all wrong really. The extreme chip should be an 8 core right out of the gate. That would justify the price for sure. Between 22nm and the size of 2011 chips it shouldn't be a space issue, so why did they hold back?

Ivy Bridge is just a die shrink of the current Sandy Bridge, so obviously its going to be weaker (architecture wise) than Sandy Bridge-E. Intel is being a dick again, trying to cheat us out of our money. But this time our saviour will not be AMD (at least for now), but Sandy Bridge and potentially Ivy Bridge.

So the difference between the affordable chips and the extreme edition is the cache this time around? Not sure how I feel about that, is this a bigger or smaller difference than we had previously? Unlocked multipliers were nice, but you could go just as far with fsb clocking in most cases, but here this is a clock for clock advantage...

You know it feels like this is all wrong really. The extreme chip should be an 8 core right out of the gate. That would justify the price for sure. Between 22nm and the size of 2011 chips it shouldn't be a space issue, so why did they hold back?

Click to expand...

I'm sure Intel will be releasing an 8-core desktop cpus, but not this year. Maybe next year.
Just look at the trend of LGA1366. How many years since LGA1366 were out until Intel releasing 6-core i-7 980X?

If you can milk out your buyer with a $1000 cpus with 6-core, why would you releasing an 8-core cpus?